₦airaland Forum

Bastage, Please note that I am NOT the author of this peom.

Jesus forbade the calling of people "fool(s)" on pain of going to hell,  yet he himself called people fools not once but twice.  Take a look at the bible passages below:

Matthew 5:

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,  and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

---

Luke 11:

39 And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?

Luke 24:

23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.


This Jesus fellow was quite an ignoramus and hypocritical imposter, who ironically characterised others as hypocrite without first examining himself.  Why did he not take his own advice and remove the plank from his eyes before point fingers at others.

---

Some importance references:

Sins of Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9O6SgGZ9G0&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xao6K02Tjo&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFMGjV4OlMY&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vabI9zOXsLg&feature=channel_page

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYoog2kkYHw&feature=channel_page

God is Love

He tempted Eve with a forbidden tree
God is Love
He allows Satan to wander free
God is Love

He killed newborn babies with a worldwide flood
God is Love
He just cant get enough fresh blood
God is Love

He killed poor Uzzah just for saving the ark
God is Love
He hated vegetables and gave Cain a mark
God is Love

He fried little babies in Sodom and Gomorrah
God is Love
He killed thousands more in the Amalekite slaughter
God is Love

He caused Davids newborn son to die
God is Love
Yet honored Rahab for her lie
God is Love

He let the devil ruin Job
God is Love
So he could brag and he could boast
God is Love

He hardened poor old Pharaohs heart
God is Love
Condemned by God, doomed from the start
God is Love

But with escape he was not content
God is Love
All firstborn died before they went
God is Love

He spared not one poor Canaanite
God is Love
The newborn went without a fight
God is Love

He killed forty-two boys with a grizzly bear
God is Love
Because Elisha had no hair
God is Love

He killed Ananias and Sapphira too
God is Love
For holding back their portion due
God is Love

So to cap off all that he had done
God is Love
He tortured and killed his only son
God is love?

By TruthSurge

~Lady~:
huxley

stop using the KJV it has errors in it.

But anyway

In the foreknowledge of God; and inasmuch as all mercy and grace, from the beginning, was given in view of his death and passion
The is the foreknowledge of God, inasmuch as all mercry and grace from the beginning was given in view of his death and passion. Remember in the beginning Christ was prophecied to come. God already knew he would be slain. Look up Gen 3:15

Yes, but when was jesus slain? Was it about 2000 years ago, or was it at the creation of the world as Rev says?

According to the book of Revelations, Jesus was crucified at the creation of the world, Revelations 13: 8;

King James Version
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the [size=15pt]Lamb slain from the foundation of the world[/size].


New International Version
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the [size=15pt]Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world[/size].


So why do Christian keep trying to tell lies about some crucifixion happening about 2000 years ago?  Common Christians, shape up.

I pray that you fail your exams

Was Jesus a mythical construction? Watch here

Great video here

Strictly speaking, I don't realy care which of these ("once saved, always saved" or " once saved NOT necessarily always saved" ) is true. This is the nonsense that the Christian believe is, so it is their duty to working it out. I am just curious as to two things, really:

1) Why it is that the Christian community is split into two separate camps over this matter, suggesting that the bible supports both positions.

2) Why it is that when people de-convert from Christianity, the Christian accuse them of never having been true Christians, as though true Christians are incapable of backsliding.

davidylan:
Does the bible promote "once saved, forever saved"? No it doesnt and if Huxley had been honest he would have done some searching on his own and found it wasnt true . . .

1. [size=15pt]Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.[/size]

[size=20pt] - [b]In essence, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for a christian to backslide and miss heaven.
- It is possible to backslide but there is the chance to be renewed in genuine repentance.[/size][/b]

2. The example of Balaam . . .
[size=15pt]2 Peter 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.[/size]

- Verses 20-21 describe men who were once spirit-filled born again christians but who (like Balaam - once a mighty prophet of God but backslid in pursuit of monetary reward) got themselves entangled again with the world. Verse 20 describes their LATTER END . . . it certainly wasnt heaven!

I dont care how many articles they copy and paste to validate their biased positions, what the bible has to say on this issue is enough for me. There are several other examples in the bible of people who backslid and we know their end.

Brief examples - Saul, Judas, Alexander, Hymenaeus . . .

If it is possible for Christians to backslide, why then do Christians always say that anyone who has left Christianity and backslid was NEVER truly and Christian in the first place?

Can a true muslim leave islam? Take a look at this

davidylan:
Does the bible promote "once saved, forever saved"? No it doesnt and if Huxley had been honest he would have done some searching on his own and found it wasnt true . . .

1. Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

- In essence, it is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE for a christian to backslide and miss heaven.
- It is possible to backslide but there is the chance to be renewed in genuine repentance.

2. The example of Balaam . . .
2 Peter 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

- Verses 20-21 describe men who were once spirit-filled born again christians but who (like Balaam - once a mighty prophet of God but backslid in pursuit of monetary reward) got themselves entangled again with the world. Verse 20 describes their LATTER END . . . it certainly wasnt heaven!

I dont care how many articles they copy and paste to validate their biased positions, what the bible has to say on this issue is enough for me. There are several other examples in the bible of people who backslid and we know their end.

Brief examples - Saul, Judas, Alexander, Hymenaeus . . .

How then do you square that with the stuff I posted, particularly 1 John 2: 19? You have failed to address the stuff I posted from the website, which I might add are not my views but the views of other Christians who read the bible like you do. The question is - whose interpretation is right and how do we know who is right - you or the website redactors?

n_o_e_t_ic:
y are u trying to misrepresent my views?

why shouls a xtian knowingly commit murder?
why should a xtian indulge in fornication and adultery?
why should a xtian commit fraud and other nefarious peccadilloes?

anyone who indulges in these things can call themselves xtiansm but in reality are not.
how does my view connect with your misinformation?

So in what way is your university/course/degree analogy applicably to this question then? I thought in your analogy, getting to university amounts to first becoming a Christian; and staying through the course and getting a degree amounts to enduring the travails of the Christian life and eventually gaining salvation. Thus;


Admission into University -----> Becoming a Christian
Staying through the course and passing your degree -----> Being saved and entry into heaven.



Does this misrepresent you view? If it does, please feel free to correct me.

If it does represent your view, then you MUST hold the view that "Once saved, NOT necessarily always saved", which is in opposition to what the bible actually says.

n_o_e_t_ic:
what are u talking about?

where did u get the assertion of "once saved always saved" from?
u are simply trying to confine xtianity to the convenient box of atheistic scrutiny. ur postulations cannot survive a rigorous intellectual debate.

i asked u: when u leave a university or get expelled, do u get a degree?

Did you read my posts above? This is one of them:

Here is another question/response from the same website:

Question: "Is there such a thing as an ex-Christian?"

Answer: This is a question for which there is definitely a clear and explicit biblical answer. First John 2:19 declares, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This Scripture makes it abundantly clear—there is no such thing as an ex-Christian. If a person is truly a Christian, he/she will never depart from the faith “…for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us…” If a person who claimed to be a Christian denies the faith, he/she was not truly a Christian. “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us…their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” No, there is truly no such thing as an ex-Christian.

It is important to distinguish between a true Christian and an “in name only” Christian. A true Christian is a person who has fully trusted in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. A true Christian is a person who understands what the Bible says about sin, sin’s penalty, who Jesus is, what Jesus did for us, and how that provides for the forgiveness of sin. A true Christian is a person who has received Jesus Christ as personal Savior, has been made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), and is progressively being transformed into the image of Christ. A true Christian is a person who is kept a Christian by the power of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:13, 30; 2 Corinthians 1:22). This true Christian can never become an ex-Christian. No one who has truly and fully trusted in Christ as Savior could ever deny Him. No one who truly comprehends the evil of sin, the terror of sin’s consequences, the love of Christ, and the grace and mercy of God, could ever turn back from the Christian faith.

There are many in this world who claim to be Christians, but are not. Being a Christian does not mean being an American or having white skin. Being a Christian does not mean recognizing that Jesus was a great teacher or even seeking to follow His teachings. Being a Christian means being a representative of Christ and a follower / servant of Christ. There are people who have had some connection to a “Christian” church and then later renounced that connection. There are people who have “tasted” and “sampled” Jesus Christ, without ever actually receiving Him as Savior. However, there is no such thing as true ex-Christian. A true Christian will never, and could never, renounce the faith. [size=16pt]Any person who claimed to be a Christian, but later rejects the Christian faith, was never truly a Christian.
[/size]


Now speak!

n_o_e_t_ic:


why are thou so gullible my friend? where did u deduce that from?

Have you already forgotten about this thread , where you admitted that one's salvation is not secured if they were to do the wrong thing and got expelled from the university, thus missing their degree? Have you got a very short memory as well?

n_o_e_t_ic:
whats the lie in this context?

OK. Maybe it is/was not a lie, but a poor understanding of your bible. In which case (in the event that you poorly understood you bible), I withdraw my charge if lying and apologise.

If you are saved, then you are saved. You are the lucky one for no amount of further sinning could rob you of your salvation. For once saved, always saved. So other than the petty guilt feel in indulging in little misdemeanours like:

1) Falsifying immigration application
2) Fraudulent Benefits claims
3) Cheating in school exams
4) Telling falsehoods
5) Lusting after a man or woman
6) Gossiping
7) Glutony

etc, etc

No of these misdeed are capable of robbing you of your salvation. Shout Halleluyah, Amen.

Davidylan and Neotic both fear that if they take a wrong step, they may backslide, thus missing their salvation. They have admitted this on a separate thread . But the bible says anyone who backslides is not really a true Christians.  Given that Davidylan and Neotic know that they are at risk of backsliding, they CANNOT be true Christians.

So these self-professed Christians are simply fly-by-night hypocites.

Hey,

What happen to Neotic and Davidylan? Now they have been found to be lying, they have abandoned this thread. Such is the dishonesty of these Christians!

Here is another question/response from the same website:

Question: "Is there such a thing as an ex-Christian?"

Answer: This is a question for which there is definitely a clear and explicit biblical answer. First John 2:19 declares, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” This Scripture makes it abundantly clear—there is no such thing as an ex-Christian. If a person is truly a Christian, he/she will never depart from the faith “…for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us…” If a person who claimed to be a Christian denies the faith, he/she was not truly a Christian. “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us…their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” No, there is truly no such thing as an ex-Christian.

It is important to distinguish between a true Christian and an “in name only” Christian. A true Christian is a person who has fully trusted in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. A true Christian is a person who understands what the Bible says about sin, sin’s penalty, who Jesus is, what Jesus did for us, and how that provides for the forgiveness of sin. A true Christian is a person who has received Jesus Christ as personal Savior, has been made a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), and is progressively being transformed into the image of Christ. A true Christian is a person who is kept a Christian by the power of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:13, 30; 2 Corinthians 1:22). This true Christian can never become an ex-Christian. No one who has truly and fully trusted in Christ as Savior could ever deny Him. No one who truly comprehends the evil of sin, the terror of sin’s consequences, the love of Christ, and the grace and mercy of God, could ever turn back from the Christian faith.

There are many in this world who claim to be Christians, but are not. Being a Christian does not mean being an American or having white skin. Being a Christian does not mean recognizing that Jesus was a great teacher or even seeking to follow His teachings. Being a Christian means being a representative of Christ and a follower / servant of Christ. There are people who have had some connection to a “Christian” church and then later renounced that connection. There are people who have “tasted” and “sampled” Jesus Christ, without ever actually receiving Him as Savior. However, there is no such thing as true ex-Christian. A true Christian will never, and could never, renounce the faith. [size=16pt]Any person who claimed to be a Christian, but later rejects the Christian faith, was never truly a Christian.
[/size]

davidylan:
Read the entire article again (take off your biased glasses first) . . . then come back to answer your own question. You dont seem to have understood what they were saying, basically you just posted anything you thought would validate your preconcieved idea.

The article basically promotes the "once saved, always saved" idea. If you dispute that, show me where the article most an alternative or opposite view.

The Pharisees were the most righteous of the Jews, a fact acknowledge by Jesus himself when he enjoined people to have a degree of righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees.  This is a far cry from the charge of hypocrites that some have levelled on them.  The high recommendation of the Pharisees comes from God himself.

davidylan:
This is actually far from the truth. Seems you people are only here to "win" arguments not to seek facts.
The bible NO WHERE promotes the idea of "once saved forever saved" . . . infact it says Heb 10: 23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

How divergent Christians views are is a matter only their sky-daddy knows.   I got the following from a popular Christians website gotquestion .  I would readily admit that it might not be a representative view of the Christian body.


Question: "Is a backsliding Christian still saved?"

Answer: This is a question that has been debated endlessly over the years. The word “backslider” or “backsliding” does not appear in the New Testament and is used in the Old Testament primarily of Israel. The Jews, though they were God’s chosen people, continually turned their backs on Him and rebelled against His Word (Jeremiah 8:9). That is why they were forced to make sacrifices for sin over and over in order to restore their relationship with the God they had offended. The Christian, however, has availed himself of the perfect, once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ and needs no further sacrifice for his sin. God himself has obtained our salvation for us (2 Corinthians 5:21) and because we are saved by Him, a true Christian cannot fall away so as not to return.

Christians do sin (1 John 1:- 8- ), but the Christian life is not to be identified by a life of sin. Believers are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We have the Holy Spirit in us producing good fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). A Christian life should be a changed life. Christians are forgiven no matter how many times they sin, but at the same time Christians should live a progressively more holy life as they grow closer to Christ. We should have serious doubts about a person who claims to be a believer yet lives a life that says otherwise. Yes, a true Christian who falls back into sin is still saved, but at the same time a person who lives a life controlled by sin is not truly a Christian.

What about a person who denies Christ? The Bible tells us that if a person denies Christ, he never truly knew Christ to begin with. 1 John 2:19 declares, “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” A person who rejects Christ and turns his back on faith is demonstrating that he never belonged to Christ. Those who belong to Christ remain with Christ. Those who renounce their faith never had it to begin with. [/b]2 Timothy 2:11-13, “Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us; if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself.”

Basically,  1 John 2: 19, is interpreted as saying that "[b]once saved, always saved".   Or is the above interpretation incorrect?

n_o_e_t_ic:
Its as good as enrolling for a course in the university, if u leave before the course ends or the university expels you, do u get a degree?

This admission is very strange indeed insofar as many Christian promote the idea that "once saved, always saved".  Your analogy suggests that this is  not the case, insofar as you could be expelled out of the university course, thus losing you degree.  Just as you might miss heaven at some point in the future, having once been earmarked for it.

Why do Christian then say that people who deconvert or backslide from Christianity were never truly Christians, if it is possible for you to be expel from the ultimate degree having once been chosen for it?

n_o_e_t_ic:
I am a Christian and by grace I am saved and remain saved.

He was referring to the hypocrites amongst us. The tithe and first fruit propagators and those who have made the church the exclusive preserve of the rich. To those (church) who who have excluded the condemned, prostitutes, widowed, destitute, hopeless from God`s kingdom, in the name of Jesus.

And not to forget you, thou unsaved atheist, . . .

Now that you know you are saved, is there any possibility that something could happen in the future that could jeopardise your salvation? Or is it "once saved, always saved"?

n_o_e_t_ic:
for the first time u are right. any problem with this reality?

So you tell me - Are you a Christian and are you going to be saved?

If you are, how do you know you are a Christian? Is it possible that true believing Christians might not make it into heaven? Checkout what Jesus is supposed to have said:

[Matthew 7:21 (New King James Version)]

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


If this is true, then it is possible that many people who think themselves Christians are simply wasting their time, for they might be turned back at the pearly gates by the master they so sought and praised in their lives. What a way to waste ones life.

[size=18pt]Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down[/size]
By Jerry Coyne

Reposted from
http://whyevolutionistrue./2009/04/22/truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/

For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.
   –Stephen Jay Gould

If you’re a regular at this website, you’ve heard me complain about scientific organizations that sell evolution by insisting that it’s perfectly consistent with religion. Evolution, they say, threatens many peoples’ religious views — not just the literalism of Genesis, but also the morality that supposedly emanates from scripture. Professional societies like the National Academy of Sciences — the most elite organization of American scientists — have concluded that to make evolution palatable to Americans, you must show that it is not only consistent with religion, but also no threat to it. (And so much the better if, as theologians like John Haught assert, evolution actually deepens our faith.) Given that many members of such organizations are atheists, their stance of accommodationism appears to be a pragmatic one.

Here I argue that the accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.

Let’s begin with a typical accommodationist statement—this one from the National Academy of Sciences:

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

This at least recognizes some conflict between evolution and fundamentalist faiths, but downplays it. The National Academy website also includes three statements by religious scientists, Kenneth Miller, Father George Coyne of the Vatican, and Francis Collins, averring no conflict between the Gouldian magisteria.

There are no statements by anyone who sees faith and science as in conflict. This is not because those people don’t exist: after all, there are plenty of scientists and philosophers, including myself, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, P. Z. Myers, Dan Dennett, A. C. Grayling, and Peter Atkins, who feel strongly that science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world. Several of these people have written books to that effect. Apparently the NAS prefers to ignore this dissent.

When a professional organization makes such strong statements about the compatibility of science and faith, and ignores or gives but a polite nod to the opposing view, that organization is endorsing a philosophy. This goes beyond saying that evolution is true. The NAS is saying that most religious people and scientists have no problem with evolution and faith. Given that 40% of Americans reject evolution outright (almost entirely on religious grounds), while 92% of NAS scientists reject the idea a personal god, the National Academy is clearly pushing its agenda in defiance of evidence.

Among professional organizations that defend the teaching of evolution, perhaps the biggest offender in endorsing the harmony of science and faith is The National Center for Science Education. Although one of their officers told me that their official position on faith was only that “we will not criticize religions,” a perusal of their website shows that this is untrue. Not only does the NCSE not criticize religion, but it cuddles up to it, kisses it, and tells it that everything will be all right.

In the rest of this post I’d like to explore the ways that, I think, the NCSE has made accommodationism not only its philosophy, but its official philosophy. This, along with their endorsement and affiliation with supernaturalist scientists, philosophers, and theologians, inevitably corrupts their mission.

Let me first affirm that I enormously admire the work of the NCSE and of its director, Eugenie Scott and its president, Kevin Padian. They have worked tirelessly to keep evolution in the schools and creationism out, most visibly in the Dover trial. But they’re also active at school-board hearings and other venues throughout the country, as well as providing extensive resources for the rest of us in the battle for Darwin. They are the good guys.

So why am I using this space to criticize the organization? I suppose it’s because I feel that in its battle against creationism, the NCSE should represent all evolutionary biologists. But they are not representing a lot of us when they nuzzle up to theologians and vigorously push the harmony of science and religion. In effect, they’re pretending that the many people who disagree with their philosophical message don’t exist. Yet they can afford to ignore us because, in the end, where else can we atheists go for support against creationists?

The pro-religion stance of the NCSE is offensive and unnecessary — a form of misguided pragmatism. First, it dilutes their mission of spreading Darwinism, by giving credibility to the views of scientists and theologians who are de facto creationists, whether they admit it or not. Second, it departs from their avowed mission to be philosophically neutral. Third, it disingenuously pretends that evolution poses absolutely no threat to faith, or conflicts with faith in any way.

None of this would be a problem if the NCSE would just stick to its avowed mission and “neutral” stance toward religion.

What is this mission? As stated on one of its webpages:

What does NCSE do?

   The National Center for Science Education, founded in 1981, engages in a number of activities advancing two primary goals: improving and supporting education in evolution and the nature of science, and increasing public understanding of these subjects.

If they just did this, there would be no problem. So do they have to engage with faith to advance the teaching of evolution? Apparently not, at least if you look at their religious position on the same page:

What is NCSE’s religious position?

   None. The National Center for Science Education is not affiliated with any religious organization or belief. We and our members enthusiastically support the right of every individual to hold, practice, and advocate their beliefs, religious or non-religious. Our members range from devout practitioners of several religions to atheists, with many shades of belief in between. What unites them is a conviction that science and the scientific method, and not any particular religious belief, should determine science curriculum.

This stance of religious—and philosophical!–neutrality is underscored by a speech given by Eugenie Scott:

I think we make a grave error when we confuse philosophical views derived from science — even those we support — with science itself. . . .

   I must say, though, that over the last several months I have presented lectures at several universities and two meetings of professional scientists in which I have argued that a clear distinction must be drawn between science as a way of knowing about the natural world and science as a foundation for philosophical views. One should be taught to our children in school, and the other can optionally be taught to our children at home.

But despite their avowed commitment to not mixing philosophy with science, an important part of the NCSE’s activities is its “Faith Project,” whose director is the theologically trained Peter M. J. Hess. This project appears to be devoted entirely to the philosophical position that evolution need not conflict with “proper” faith. Among the pages of this project is Hess’s statement, in “Science and Religion”:

   

In public discussions of evolution and creationism, we are sometimes told that we must choose between belief in creation and acceptance of the theory of evolution, between religion and science. But is this a fair demand? Must I choose only one or the other, or can I both believe in God and accept evolution? Can I both accept what science teaches and engage in religious belief and practice? This is a complex issue, but theologians, clergy, and members of many religious traditions have concluded that the answer is, unequivocally, yes.

You can’t get much more explicit than this. To those of us who hold contrary views, including the idea that religion is dangerous, this logic sounds like this:

   

We are sometimes told that we must choose between smoking two packs a day and pursuing a healthy lifestyle. Many cigarette companies, however, hold unequivocally that no such choice is necessary.

More accommodationism rears its head in the section called “How Do I read the Bible? Let Me Count the Ways”:

Contrary to what biblical literalists argue, the Bible was not intended by its authors to teach us about science — which did not exist at the time the Hebrew oral traditions were set in writing as the Book of Genesis. The Bible does not teach us the literal truths that the earth is flat, or that a global flood once covered Mt. Everest, or that we inhabit a geocentric cosmos, or that the world was created as we now observe it in six solar days, or that species were specially created in their present form and have not changed since the days of creation.

   Rather, the Bible can be read as a record of one particular people’s developing moral relationship with the God in whom they placed their trust. As such, it enshrines timeless ideals about the integrity of creation and human responsibility within that creation. For biblical believers, part of that responsibility is using the gift of human rationality to discover the exciting story of how life ― including human life ― has developed on the earth.

Well, the Bible wasn’t intended to teach us about science, but it was intended to be an account of where life came from, and it is still read that way by a huge number of Americans. What gives the NCSE the right, or the authority, to suggest how people interpret the Bible?

The “recommended books” page of the NCSE’s religion section gives the same one-sided view. The section on “Theology, Evolution, and Creation” lists 36 books. Every one of them appears to offer an accommodationist viewpoint. Another 38 books appear (on the same page) in a “related themes in science and religion” section on the same page. In both section we find all the familiar names: Francis Collins, John Haught, Kenneth Miller, Michael Ruse, Simon Conway Morris, John Polkinghorne, Joan Roughgarden, and so on — accommodationists all. There are no books by Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, A.C. Grayling, and all those who have criticized the science-faith concordat.

As is usual in accommodationist literature, when the neo-atheist evolutionists are mentioned, they are done so dismissively, and held partially responsible for arousing anti-evolution sentiment:

 

When scientists such as William Provine and Richard Dawkins present philosophical materialism as the inevitable outgrowth of science or evolution (Dawkins 1987; Provine 1989) they reinforce the view encouraged by Morris and other antievolutionists that “one cannot be an evolutionist and a Christian.”

Perhaps most telling, the NCSE markets, as “staff publications,” some books that apparently show how religion and science can live happily together. Take a look at the page on which you’re supposed to sign up as an NCSE member. There you’ll find the “staff publication” Catholicism and Science, by Peter M. J. Hess (director of the “Faith Project”). By advertising the book in this way the NCSE is saying, “here’s our point of view.” What is the point of view of Catholicism and Science? The book is so new that I haven’t seen it, but here’s the description on Amazon:

When most people think about Catholicism and science, they will automatically think of one of the famous events in the history of science — the condemnation of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church. But the interaction of Catholics with science has been — and is — far more complex and positive than that depicted in the legend of the Galileo affair. Understanding the natural world has always been a strength of Catholic thought and research — from the great theologians of the Middle Ages to the present day — and science has been a hallmark of Catholic education for centuries.

Of course this doesn’t mention that the Catholic church itself has gone back and forth on the veracity of evolution. Pope John Paul II, for example, declared that God inserted a soul somewhere in the lineage between Australopithecus and Homo. (Scott mentions this view, albeit only in passing, in an essay “Creationists and the Pope’s Statement.” But Dr. Scott’s long discussion of the position of the Catholic Church is celebratory, completely ignoring how the views of many Catholic contravene everything we know about human evolution.

Digging deeper into the NCSE site, one finds it riddled with strange lucubrations about religion. For example, in an essay by Phila Borgeson called “Is There Two-Way Traffic on the Bridge? Why ‘Intelligent Design’ is not Fruitful Theologically,” one finds this:

 

The little we know about God from “intelligent design” is not congruent with an understanding of God that takes Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously. . . In Christian scripture, the central way in which God is related to his creation is, of course, through Christ’s redemption of the suffering of the world. Out of this emerges a theodicy that embraces as the price of the freedom God has bestowed on creation what we often read as the cruelty and caprice of nature. A designer God, though, must also be the designer of pain and death. In theological terms, “intelligent design” offers no articulation of how salvation is accomplished and constructs a God that is hard to square with the God who is steadfast love and suffering servant. George Murphy, working within his Lutheran tradition, has placed much emphasis on a theology of the cross as central to an understanding of God’s interaction with creation (Murphy 2002, 2003). Jürgen Moltmann stresses God’s suffering with God’s people, drawing on the Hebrew concept of shekinah and the kabbalistic concept of zimzum along with the Christian understanding of the kenosis (self-emptying) of God (Moltmann 2001). WH Vanstone pointed out in prose and hymn that the image of God as a creator, omnipotently, serenely, and detachedly presiding, then occasionally condescending to manipulate things to his will, is totally incongruent with what Christians know in the divine self-emptying of Christ (Vanstone 1977).

Zimzum? Can somebody please tell me what on earth this tedious exegesis has to do with science education?

But my main beef is this: the NCSE touts, shelters, or gives its imprimatur to intellectuals and scientists who are either “supernaturalists” (the word that A. C. Grayling uses for those who see supernatural incursions into the universe) or who have what Dan Dennett calls “belief in belief”—the idea that while religion may be based on false beliefs, those beliefs are themselves good for society. (Among the former are Kenneth Miller and John Haught, the latter Michael Ruse and Francisco Ayala). Both of these attitudes draw the NCSE away from its primary mission of promoting evolutionary biology, and push it into the hinterlands of philosophy and theology.

I have discussed Kenneth Miller’s views on evolution before, in particular his explicit Catholic theism (i.e., God interacts directly with the world), and his speculation that these interactions may occur through perturbations in subatomic particles. He has also floated the idea that God set up the laws of physics so that they were particularly propitious for the appearance of life on Earth, and so made inevitable the appearance of highly intelligent beings who could apprehend and worship their creator. Miller’s theism is also reflected in his published statements such as the following:

In reality, the potential for human existence is woven into every fiber of that universe, from the starry furnaces that forged the carbon upon which life is based, to the chemical bonds that fashioned our DNA from the muck and dust of this rocky planet. Seems like a plan to me.

And this:

. . . . .the God that we know through Christianity is not someone who acts like an ordinary human being, who simply happens to be endowed with supernatural powers. We are talking about a being whose intelligence is transcendent; we’re talking about a being who brought the universe into existence, who set up the rules of existence, and uses those rules and that universe and the natural world in which we live to bring about his will.

As both Massimo Pigliucci (a biologist and philosopher at Stony Book) and I have noted, this kind of talk comes perilously close to intelligent design; indeed, it may well be a form of intelligent design. If God “uses rules” to bring about his will, then evolution cannot be undirected.

John Haught, another person who appears frequently on the NCSE website (and was also a religious witness in the Dover trial), has an equally teleological view of evolution. In his accommodationist books God After Darwin and the more recent Deeper than Darwin, he espouses a teleology in which evolution is ineluctably drawn by God to some future point of perfection. In God after Darwin, he approvingly cites (p. 83) the Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin’s suggestion:

. . . . that a metaphysically adequate explanation of any universe in which evolution occurs requires — at some point beyond the limits that science has set for itself — a transcendent force of attraction to explain the overarching tendency of matter to evolve toward life, mind, and spirit.

But any injection of teleology into evolutionary biology violates precisely the great advance of Darwin’s theory: to explain the appearance of design by a purely materialistic process — no deity required. In a letter to his mentor Charles Lyell, Darwin explicitly decried the idea of divine intervention in evolution:

 

I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition ‘of new powers and attributes and forces,’ or of any ‘principle of improvement, except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. . . I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.

If we’re to defend evolutionary biology, we must defend it as a science: a nonteleological theory in which the panoply of life results from the action of natural selection and genetic drift acting on random mutations.

The directors of the NCSE are smart people. They know perfectly well — as did Darwin himself — that evolutionary biology is and always has been a serious threat to faith. But try to find one acknowledgment of this incompatibility on their website. No, all you’ll find there is sweetness and light. Indeed, far from being a threat to faith, evolution seems to reinforce it! Is it disingenuous to be a personal atheist, as some NCSE officials are, and yet tell others that their faith is compatible with science? I don’t know. But the NCSE’s pragmatism has taken it far outside its mandate. Their guiding strategy seems to be keep Darwin in the schools by all means necessary.

Am I grousing because, as an atheist and a non-accommodationist, my views are simply ignored by the NAS and NCSE? Not at all. I don’t want these organizations to espouse or include my viewpoint. I want religion and atheism left completely out of all the official discourse of scientific societies and organizations that promote evolution. If natural selection and evolution are as powerful as we all believe, then we should devote our time to making sure that they are more widely and accurately understood, and that their teaching is defended. Those should be the sole missions of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education. Leave theology to the theologians.

OLAADEGBU:
That's because of your ignorance of who a Christian is.  A Christian is someone who not only knows about God but has a personal encounter and relationship with Him.  He is one who has experienced the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ and has faith in Him alone, and Jesus has come to set up His kingdom in his heart, he is one who has received the forgiveness of his past sins and received the impartation of righteousness by faith and  for the newness of life as a new creature and has hope for his eternal future.  He is not the religious type that only knows about God but He has a revelation knowledge of God.

So this is what you mean - "Once a Christian, always a Christian", correct? So is it open to anyone to KNOW whether they are a Christian or not? If it is, how does one know that?

Jesus once said the following: [Matthew 7:21 (New King James Version)]

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


This implies that many people who call themselves Christian today are really wasting their time, as they will never make it into heaven. And God already knows that these people are just wasting their and his time. What a cruel way to treat people, stringing them along only to discard them into hell at the last day, without so much as informing them.

What if your pastor or minister realises that Christianity is all bollocks and decides to quit this delusion. Does that mean that he never was a real Christian?


Why do most Christian deonminations make a big deal about BACKSLIDING? Backsliding from what, if one was never really a Christian?

Listen here

~Lady~:
oh by the way it is allowed for atheists to be honest too, especially with themselves. it is allowed for them to make sense every now and then, just food for thought. it is allowed for them to not be proud and think highly of themselves. it is allowed that they have respect for other ppl, it is allowed that they practice what they preach. yeah it is allowed.

Did you enjoy the video?

 Enjoy this and most of all this one